Thanks, Alan. Do you want to build this into the Editor's Draft <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest> so we can review it in place?
~Shawn
Alan Chuter wrote:
> My apologies for missing last Fridays' EOWG call. I expect to take part
> this week. BPWG people please read especially the paragraph at the end
> of this message ("However, I would disagree with the suggestion").
>
> I have incorporated Shadi's comments into the existing paragraph on
> differences of approach between MWBP and WCAG, which now looks like the
> following:
>
> [start proposed text] WCAG and MWBP both aim to improve the Web
> interaction of users who experience barriers due to either disabilities
> or the device used to access the Web. However, WCAG and MWBP have
> slightly different approaches. For example, a key feature of WCAG is
> testability and the WCAG 2.0 success criteria are specifically designed
> to be testable statements. W3C recommends that all Web sites comply with
> WCAG 2.0. In some situations, Web sites are legally required to be
> accessible. MWBP is different in that it provides suggested best
> practices for consideration. Although some of the best practices are
> testable, they are not all intended to be testable. It is not expected
> that all Web sites will meet MWBP.
>
> While the two documents show significant overlap in many areas, there is
> a continuum in the level of overlap between the individual technical
> requirements, so that there is not always a 1:1 mapping between them.
> For instance, WCAG has some requirements that are specific to
> accessibility needs of people with disabilities, and that are not
> relevant for mobile devices (for example, requirements that specifically
> address assistive technology). Conversely, MWBP has other requirements
> that are specific to mobile devices only (for example, requirements to
> minimize battery consumption and CPU power). However, in general most
> requirements are applicable for both groups of users (for example,
> requirements for color contrast, flexible font sizes, etc.).
> [end proposed text]
>
> However, I would disagree with the suggestion:
>
> > ... "WCAG is intended for all Web sites while
> > MWBP is not intended for all Web sites"
>
> MWBP is intended to help provide a reasonable browsing experience of all
> web sites when using mobile devices. It isn't intended only for
> mobile-specific content. I don't think there is a any difference of
> approach here.
>
> However, while MWBP advocates customising content to take advantage of
> mobile device characteristics (when known), WCAG avoids any suggestion
> of customising content to suit users abilities (or to overcome their
> disabilities).
>
> regards,
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Thank you Shawn for getting this started. Unfortunately I will not be
>> able to attend EOWG this week but am happy with what the group
>> decides. This is certainly going in the direction that I was thinking of.
>>
>> Please find some additional thoughts:
>>
>>
>> Shawn Henry wrote:
>>> Here is a proposal to clear the remaining pending action items on the
>>> WCAG-MWBP document:
>>>
>>> Add the following paragraph under "The Relationship Between WCAG and
>>> MWBP"
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest/#no_correspondence_table>
>>>
>>>
>>> WCAG and MWBP both aim to improve the Web interaction of users who
>>> experience barriers due to either disabilities or the device used to
>>> access the Web. However, WCAG and MWBP have slightly different
>>> approaches. For example, a key feature of WCAG is testability and the
>>> WCAG 2.0 success criteria are specifically designed to be testable
>>> statements. W3C recommends that all Web sites comply with WCAG 2.0.
>>> In some situations, Web sites are legally required to be accessible.
>>> MWBP is different in that it provides suggested best practices for
>>> consideration. Although some of the best practices are testable, they
>>> are not all intended to be testable. It is not expected that all Web
>>> sites will meet MWBP.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> First, I'd replace "they are not all intended to be testable" with
>> "they are not all designed to be testable" (I don't think it was the
>> explicit intention of the group to not make all the requirements
>> testable).
>>
>> More importantly, even if all MWBP were to become testable
>> requirements, there would probably still be some mapping differences
>> between the two documents. I think that one of the things to mention
>> is something like:
>>
>> "While the two documents show significant overlap in many areas, there
>> is a continuum in the level of overlap between the individual
>> technical requirements, so that there isn't always a 1:1 mapping
>> between them. For instance, WCAG has some requirements that are
>> specific to accessibility needs of people with disabilities, and that
>> are not relevant for mobile devices [1]. Conversely, MWBP has other
>> requirements that are specific to mobile devices only [2]. However, in
>> general most requirements are applicable for both groups of users [3].".
>>
>> [1] Example: requirements that specifically address assistive technology
>> [2] Example: requirements to minimize battery consumption and CPU power
>> [3] Example: requirements for color contrast, flexible font sizes, etc.
>>
>> In other words, I think we shouldn't stress the testability aspect so
>> much as the differentiator but rather highlight the goals more clearly.
>>
>> Finally, I like the point "WCAG is intended for all Web sites while
>> MWBP is not intended for all Web sites" very much but couldn't find a
>> way to build into the same paragraph. This points also highlights a
>> fundamental difference between the goals and design principles of the
>> two documents.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shadi
>>
>>
>>> *If at all possible, I'd like to discuss this with EOWG this week*
>>> since Alan won't be available next week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ~Shawn
>>>
>>>
>>> Shawn Henry wrote:
>>>> Thanks for checking in, Alan.
>>>>
>>>> I assume the WG would want to review whatever we end up adding to
>>>> cover this issue; however, it will probably be one small paragraph
>>>> and it is likely there will be few or no comments from BPWG
>>>> participants.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I think Yeliz's paragraph is very good input, but needs
>>>> refining to flow within the context of the document. I look forward
>>>> to Shadi's perspectives... :-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ~Shawn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I would agree. My sincere apologies for not getting to this
>>>>> action item in time. I doubt it would need action by MWBP group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan Chuter wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shawn, Shadi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This Wednesday to Friday the Mobile Web Best Practices WG will be
>>>>>> holding a face to face. One of the agenda items is "Finalise
>>>>>> mobile/accessibility" [1]. This is just a reminder about the (to
>>>>>> my understanding) only two items pending:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. "Explain difference in approach between MWBPs and WCAG,
>>>>>> testability, best practices v. success criteria." Yeliz circulated
>>>>>> a suggestion to us for it on 3 March:
>>>>>> "In principle, both WCAG and MWBP aim to improve the Web
>>>>>> interaction of users who experience barriers due to either
>>>>>> disabilities or the device used to access the Web. However, WCAG
>>>>>> and MWBP have slightly different approaches. For instance, even
>>>>>> though WCAG in some countries is a legal requirement, MWBP is not.
>>>>>> Although some best practices are testable in MWBP, testability is
>>>>>> a key feature of the WCAG 2.0 principles. However, despite these
>>>>>> differences, they both focus on user experience."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. "Shadi to summarize different persepctives of WCAG and MWBP" [2].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My intention is to say to the MWBP WG that there is nothing
>>>>>> further for them to do for now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html
>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/15-eo-minutes.html#action05
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>